posted at 8:48 pm on July 31, 2012 by Allahpundit

I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology. There was clearly an internal confusion about the two busts and there was no intention to deceive. I clearly overshot the runway in my post. The point I was trying to make – under the belief that the Bust in the residence was the one previously in the Oval Office– was that this oft repeated talking point about the bust being a symbol of President Obama’s failure to appreciate the special relationship is false. The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do. I still think this is an important point and one I wish I had communicated better.

A better understanding of the facts on my part and a couple of deep breaths at the outset would have prevented this situation. Having said all that, barring a miracle comeback from the Phillies I would like to see the Nats win a world series even if it comes after my apology

Thanks,

Dan Pfeiffer

Six words, my friends. Think carefully before you respond: “Dan Pfeiffer, White House press secretary.” Huh? Am I right or am I right?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Wait a minute! Great Britain offered Mr. Obama the continued loan of the second bust, and he refused. So the British took it back — and now it resides in a place of honor in the British Embassy rather than in the Oval Office.

So, where is the “second bust”? Is it still in the White House residence, or has Mr. Obama moved it someplace less conspicuous to his family and guests?

Pfieffer apologizes, but isn’t he still lying about the Churchill bust? From his post:

The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do.

A British Embassy spokesman said: “The bust of Sir Winston Churchill by Sir Jacob Epstein was uniquely lent to a foreign head of state, President George W Bush, from the Government Art Collection in the wake of 9/11 as a signal of the strong transatlantic relationship.

“It was lent for the first term of office of President Bush. When the President was elected for his second and final term, the loan was extended until January 2009.

“The new President has decided not to continue this loan and the bust has now been returned. It is on display at the Ambassador’s Residence.”

It was good for the WH to apologize, but why can’t they just tell the complete truth about this? Obama decided not to keep the bust – denying the loan continuation was something he chose to do.

It was good for the WH to apologize, but why can’t they just tell the complete truth about this? Obama decided not to keep the bust – denying the loan continuation was something he chose to do.
Slublog on July 31, 2012 at 9:07 PM

It’s easy enough to prove or disprove if a tangible object is within their posession. Proving the reasons why they no longer have it is an entirely different matter. “He didn’t make that decision….blah, blah, blah…”

It was good for the WH to apologize, but why can’t they just tell the complete truth about this? Obama decided not to keep the bust – denying the loan continuation was something he chose to do.
Slublog on July 31, 2012 at 9:07 PM

It’s easy enough to prove or disprove if a tangible object is within their posession. Proving the reasons why they no longer have it is an entirely different matter. “He didn’t make that decision….blah, blah, blah…”

The Count on July 31, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Two points from Pfeiffer:

was that this oft repeated talking point about the bust being a symbol of President Obama’s failure to appreciate the special relationship is false.

That’s completely arguable either way & we can agree to disagree.

The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do.

Completely false. You DID choose to return it. Or the Brits are lying. which is it?

Wait a minute! Great Britain offered Mr. Obama the continued loan of the second bust, and he refused. So the British took it back — and now it resides in a place of honor in the British Embassy rather than in the Oval Office.

So, where is the “second bust”? Is it still in the White House residence, or has Mr. Obama moved it someplace less conspicuous to his family and guests?

For Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts, the British think this.

unclesmrgol on July 31, 2012 at 9:07 PM

The second bust is used as a ring-toss target in the White House family games room.

It is very clear from these articles in two of Britain’s leading newspapers that the British government gave every opportunity for the Obama White House to keep the Churchill bust, but the president chose not to do so. After all, he could easily have accommodated both Lincoln and Churchill in the Oval Office. The White House, however, remains firmly in denial over the return of the bust, which carries great symbolism on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is gratifying to see Mr. Pfeiffer issue a formal apology, after his juvenile and remarkably ignorant rebuttal of Mr. Krauthammer’s Post column generated a media storm. But this does not by any means end the controversy over the decision by the White House to return the Churchill bust. There is still an air of defiance in Pfeiffer’s words, and he categorically claims that the bust was sent back “as a matter of course,” and its return to the British government was “not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do.”

As I noted in my previous blog on the subject, however, both The Sunday Telegraph and The Times of London ran major articles back in early 2009 revealing that British officials had made it clear to the White House that President Obama could keep the Churchill bust in the Oval Office. In other words, it was the White House’s firm decision to return the bust, and no request was made by the British to have it back. This looks awfully like a deliberate snub of America’s closest friend and ally, and it would be good for the White House to acknowledge the truth, rather than continue to spin a blatantly false and misleading line.

The bust that was returned was returned as a matter of course with all the other artwork that had been loaned to President Bush for display in his Oval Office and not something that President Obama or his Administration chose to do.